Loading...
PC-11-07-17 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: Commissioner Bean 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for November 7, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 3, 2017 Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Sylvester abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGNAGE Applicant: Shorewood Landing Senior Living Location: 6000 Chaska Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated that this evening the Planning Commission was going to consider an amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living Planned Unit Development (PUD) regarding signage. Director Darling explained that KTJ 285, LLC has requested an amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living PUD in order to add two additional wall signs. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Chaska Road and State Highway 7. With the exception of two homes to the southwest, all of the adjacent homes on the east side of Highway 7 are developed with single-family homes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 2 of 10 The applicant currently has two signs. There is a sign installed on the northwest side of the building facing Highway 7. There is a free standing sign installed on the berm adjacent to Chaska Road. Neither of the two existing signs are lit. The applicant is requesting the authorization to add two more signs. One would be located near the northeast corner of the building. The other would be located over the main entrance into the building. Both of the proposed wall signs would look similar; they would have individual letters and neither of them would be lit. The applicant believes the additional signage is needed to eliminate confusion for visitors to the site and they would reduce unnecessary turnarounds on Chaska Road. Staff finds the monument sign to be the most effective sign for wayfinding because it would be visible from both Highway 7 and Chaska Road. The signage on the northeast corner of the building would also help with wayfinding for eastbound traffic. The sign that would be above the main entry would not be visible until a vehicle is directly adjacent to the building. Staff believes the building itself serves as a sign for wayfinding because it is the only apartment building along Chaska Road. Darling noted that staff only recommends approval of the sign proposed for the northeast corner of the building. She also noted that the City received a letter from Mike and Cindy Marr, 6015 Chaska Road conveying their objections to any additional signs; that is now part of the public record. Shannon Rusk, 4521 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, and with Oppidan Investment Company, clarified that she thought the monument sign has ground lighting. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Ms. Rusk clarified that if a driver did not see the monument sign which faces Chaska Road because it was, for example, covered with snow and drives beyond it the only way for a driver to turn around is to pull onto a residential property driveway. Riedel asked if drivers coming from Highway 7 or going Southbound on Chaska Road would see the monument sign. Ms. Rusk stated drivers coming from Highway 7 would see the signage on the northwest side of the building. If a driver comes west on Highway 7 and turns west on to Chaska Road they may not see that monument sign if it was obstructed by snow. Riedel asked if the sign proposed for over the main entrance is more about advertising. Ms. Rusk stated she thought it is nice to have the address right above the entrance while noting there are other ways to indicate the address. She thought the most important sign to have is the one that would be up higher. Director Darling stated the address numerals could be put on the building regardless of whether or not there is a sign there. Chair Maddy asked Ms. Rusk if the proposed upper sign that would be on the northeast corner is the one that would be the most important. Ms. Rusk responded yes and clarified it would be for identification. Maddy asked if that is a common problem Oppidan encounters. Ms. Rusk stated they always have high signage and low signage to help direct guests coming to the facility and she thought it would be more important in this instance because the facility is in a residential area. Commissioner Riedel asked if there is still a speeding issue on Chaska Road for traffic coming from westbound Highway 7. Director Darling stated there are still some concerns about drivers speeding on Chaska Road and noted that the construction vehicles have been acting as a speed deterrent. Once the construction vehicles are gone she thought Council would discuss how to address those speeding issues in more detail. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. John Macualey, 6025 Chaska Road, stated that speeding along Chaska Road has not subsided. He noted that he has almost been hit three times in the past two weeks by drivers traveling at speeds of more than CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 3 of 10 30 miles per hours (mph). He then stated he does not think there is a need for the additional signage but it is clear the applicant thinks there is. Debbie Trent, 6045 Chaska Road, noted she has a 9 year old child and an 11 year old child. She stated she had seen her children almost be hit by a vehicle about five times while trying to ride their bikes along the side of the road. She then stated when walking to their mailbox the children have to walk on her right with her near the vehicles. She thought things were getting worse because there are fewer vehicles. She noted there is no way to bike or walk to the sidewalk in Chanhassen without going on the street. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. Commissioner Riedel asked if it is correct that the PUD is specific to the Oppidan (the Shorewood Landing Senior Living) Project. Director Darling confirmed that. Riedel noted the property had been zoned R-C prior to the project so prior to the PUD the R-C rules would have applied. He explained that the R-C zoning rules state that only two signs are permitted. If the property were still in an R-C zoning district then the applicant would have had to apply for a variance for the additional two signs. Riedel then asked Darling to comment on the basis for that variance. Darling stated the applicant can propose amendments, adjustments or flexibility with a PUD. Council can decide whether or not to approve what the applicant has requested depending on if it is the best interest of the traveling public and the City at large. For a variance application there are certain criteria that have to be met per State statute. For a PUD there is a custom zoning district so an amendment to the PUD is amending that entire custom zoning district. The amendment does have to be approved via an Ordinance and that would be done by Council. Riedel stated if the project was a commercial development done on an R-C property then only two signs would be permitted. He did not think the conditions for a variance would be met. Riedel asked Darling to comment on why the development was done as a PUD and not as an R-C, Residential-Commercial property. Director Darling explained the applicants had proposed a level of density that is usually not seen in an R-C zoning district. Riedel asked if it also had to do with, for example, setbacks. Darling stated she thought it was more to do with it being a taller structure than what would normally be found in a residential setting. Chair Maddy stated it was his recollection that it was more for the density; because it was going to be a senior living facility traffic was not going to be as significant as it would be for an apartment building. Chair Maddy stated from his perspective the question at hand is if the additional signage would help with the traffic or would it just be additional branding on the sides of the building. Commissioner Riedel stated staff does not believe the proposed signage above the main entrance would help with traffic. Riedel then stated he thought the motivation for the proposed sign on the northeast corner was reasonable. Chair Maddy and Commissioner Sylvester concurred. Commissioner Riedel recommended that a condition of approval should be that the proposed signage cannot be lit. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living Planned Unit Development to allow for a non-illuminated sign that would be located on the northeast corner of the facility and recommending denial of the request to put a sign above the main entrance into the facility. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:21P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 4 of 10 B. PUBLIC HEARING – NORQUAL ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE Applicant: Michael Schroeder (representing Jack and Gretchen Norqual) Location: 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. He noted the Planning Commission is going to consider a preliminary plat and lot width variance for Michael Schroeder, with Schroeder Management and on behalf of Jack and Gretchen Norqual, for the properties located at 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road. Director Darling explained the applicant has requested a preliminary plat to adjust the lot line between the 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road properties and a lot width variance for the 27968 Smithtown Road property. Adjusting the property line would allow the applicant to provide a separate driveway and watermain service to the house on the 27968 property. Currently the driveway and watermain service for the 27968 property crosses in front of the 27964 property before connecting to the Smithtown Road. That is done via easements. The northerly property (27964) would be Lot 1 and the 27968 property would be Lot 2. The existing houses would remain on the properties. The applicant’s plan is to sell the 27968 property. With one exception both Lots would meet the lot width and lot area requirements. Because the newly configured Lot 2 would end up being narrower than allowed by ordinance the applicant is requesting a lot width variance. Both properties are zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. The R-1A zoning district requires a 120 feet of frontage. Currently Lot 2 has no frontage and the applicants propose to create 50 feet of frontage. Darling noted that because the lot width variance would improve a nonconformity staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and lot width variance. Michael Schroeder, representing the applicants, noted the applicants also own Outlot A. He explained the house on the 27968 property is served by a private well; it is connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system. Currently, there is no way to bring City water line to the house without getting more easements across the 27964 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Mr. Schroeder stated there is a private easement for the current driveway to the 27968 property. Commissioner Riedel asked Director Darling how a private easement is different from a public easement. Darling explained that most of the easements talked about at the City level are public easements; the land rights have been retained for public purposes. Private easements are when the owner of one property gives the owner of another property land rights for a specific purpose. In this case it would have been for access rights. Director Darling noted that Outlot A had been subdivided as a private road rather than a public road to serve a number of houses. Mr. Schroeder stated the private easement exists and it would be vacated once the 27968 property has a private driveway with access to Smithtown Road. Commissioner Riedel stated based on the drawing it appears that the strip of land that would be added to the 27968 property would be about the width of the proposed driveway. He then stated that in general creating that type of gerrymandered lot is not in the long term interest of the City. He did not think that is how City lots should be designed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Schroeder explained that the way the lot is situated there is a big span of trees with some of them being quite tall. The goal is to ensure nothing happens to them. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:29 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he did not think there was any way to meet the 120 foot width requirement for the 27968 property. He then stated that what has been proposed would reduce the nonconformity of the 27968 property. That would be the basis for approving the applicants’ request. Chair Maddy noted the width of the 27968 property where the house is situated is about 150 feet. He thought what has been requested is reasonable. Commissioner Sylvester stated she also thought what the applicants have requested is reasonable. Commissioner Davis stated she was good with what has been proposed and noted there is nothing else that could be done with the situation. Riedel moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat to adjust the lot line between the 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road properties and a lot width variance for the 27968 Smithtown Road property subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits prior to the installation of the new driveway and water service. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M. C. PUBLIC HEARING – SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: William and Melanie Keegan Location: 25830 Birch Bluff Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M. He noted this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a side yard setback variance for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. Director Darling explained that William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, have requested a side yard variance to place an air conditioner within the 10-foot side yard setback. Zoning Code Section 1201.03 specifies that air conditioning equipment may not be located less than 10 feet from the side property line. She noted that in 2016 the applicants received variances for the redevelopment of a nonconforming lot, a side yard setback, and impervious surface coverage. She explained that the applicants have provided the specifications for the new air conditioner (an 186B Evolution Single-Stage Air Conditioner) they have chosen. It runs at about 68 decibels which is at the lower end of the acceptable decibel range (55 to 80) for residential air conditioners. For comparison purposes, conversational speech is about 60 decibels and normal household appliances (e.g.; dishwashers, hairdryers, and vacuums) are 70 – 85 decibels. She noted the zoning regulations allow for variances if practical difficulties exist. She stated staff reviewed the request based on site specific circumstances. In this case staff would have normally directed the property owner to put the air conditioner on the lake-front side of the house in order to comply with the setback requirement setback. The applicants noted that their proposal would have their air conditioner very near their neighbor’s air conditioner and generator. There would be limited windows in that area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Chair Maddy asked if the neighbor’s air conditioner and generator also encroach into their side yard setback. Director Darling confirmed that. Director Darling noted that in this circumstance staff recommends approval of the variance. William Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, stated he and his wife had gone through a variance process for their new home. They decreased the nonconformity of the new house; the old house used to be four feet from the property line and the new house will be 10 feet. Their proposed location for the new air conditioner seemed to be the best spot because their neighbor’s air conditioner and generator is in that area. He noted their neighborhood does not want the new air conditioner to be located on the lake side because they sit on the lake side to enjoy the lake. He clarified they were not aware of the setback issue when they asked the City for the other variances in 2016. Commissioner Riedel asked if the house has 10-foot side yard setbacks on each side of the new house. Mr. Keegan responded yes and noted the lot is only 60 feet wide. Riedel stated there are different types of air conditioners such as a mini-split system and noted he thought it would be unfair to require that given that the lot is so nonconforming. Mr. Keegan noted they chose a different air conditioner than they originally considered because it was quieter. Commissioner Davis stated the proposed air conditioner is quiet and noted there are several of them where she works. Those conditioners are located right below her office window. Director Darling stated the City had received two letters in support of the variance. One was from JR and Kristy Campuzano, 25860 Birch Bluff Road, and the other was from William Henney, 25920 Birch Bluff Road. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated that because the lot is quite nonconforming he thought that what the applicants have requested was reasonable. Chair Maddy stated he thought the Zoning Code protects a property owner from having their neighbor put their air conditioner right on the property line. Davis moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of a variance to allow air conditioning equipment to encroach up to a maximum of four feet into the side-yard for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. D. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Channing and Jessica Scott Location: 5915 Galpin Lake Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. He noted this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a front yard setback variance for 5915 Galpin Lake Road. Director Darling explained that Channing and Jessica Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, have requested a variance to build a second story addition on their home and attached garage. The existing garage encroaches 10 feet into the required 35 foot front-yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance indicates that a nonconforming single-family house can only be expanded if the expansion does not increase the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 7 of 10 nonconformity and if it complies with the height and setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. Adding a second story to a nonconforming structure expands the nonconformity. A second story would not increase the amount of impervious surface. The subject property is located near the intersection of Galpin Lake Road and State Highway 7. All of the adjacent properties are developed with single-family homes. The applicants’ property is riparian to Galpin Lake and is within a Shoreland overlay district. The applicants have stated that the proposed addition over the garage would be a potential living space for their aging parents. Their plans include a second story addition over the entire footprint of their home. In addition to increasing the amount of living space the applicants also want to improve the aesthetics of their home from the street. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist on the property. In this case staff found that the variance was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance being the property would continue to be a residential property. With regard to practical difficulties, staff believes that what the applicants have proposed is a reasonable use of the property. They designed their proposed addition in a way that would improve the appearance of the entire structure. It would bring the garage into visual harmony with the rest of the building plan by having sweeping roof lines over the entire addition (over the home and the garage). The applicants did not create the practical difficulty for the property; the error resulted from the original construction in 1977. The proposed addition would not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. There are no neighbors to the north of the property. The homes along the road have a variety of front-yard setbacks. Darling noted that staff understands that this request has met some of the conditions required of a variance better than others. Therefore, she recommended that the Planning Commission review the request against the variance criteria and then forward a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Riedel asked how what is being proposed would increase the nonconformity. Director Darling explained that the increase comes from adding the additional living space above the garage and the garage already encroaches into the front-yard setback. Chair Maddy stated there are a number of houses in the City where the popup begins at the setback requirement. Channing Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, stated that he and his wife Jessica have been working on the design for their home for about 11 years. For the last year and a half they have had an architect involved. He noted they are not asking to expand the footprint of anything. He stated they did not know that they would have a problem with the proposed addition above the garage. He then stated that about one and one half years ago his father had triple by-pass surgery and then five months ago his father had a stroke. Jessica’s father had fluid on his brain. They do not know when their parents will need to have care from them for which they will need additional living space. He explained that they had already been planning to change the garage roofline for consistency purposes and put in a mechanical room. They then decided to finish it off in the event they would need to have their parents live with them so they could provide care. Jessica Channing stated if they were to build the addition over the garage to only go up to the setback requirement then there would not be enough room for a bedroom or a parent’s suite should that be needed. Her parents live in southern Minnesota so it would be convenient to have that space for them when they come to stay. The addition over their home would allow them to have bedrooms for each of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 8 of 10 their three children upstairs as well as their bedroom. From an aesthetic perspective the change of the roofline would add a lot to the home as well as provide them with the added space. Commissioner Riedel asked what the square footage of the parent’s suite would be if it was cutoff at the setback line. Commissioner Davis stated she thought it would be about 140 square feet. Ms. Scott stated that would be a very small space for what they want to use it for. Commissioner Davis stated the parents would likely be incapacitated on the proposed second floor. She asked if the applicants plan on putting in an elevator. Mr. Scott responded they are not and noted that the space would also be used by the mothers should their fathers be in the hospital for some period of time. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:53 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he assumes some residents in the past were denied the opportunity to increase their nonconformity. He then stated he does not see the basis in the code or in precedent for allowing an increase in the nonconformity, while commenting that he may also want to do what the applicants are proposing sometime. The requested variance is not because of a nonconforming property or a surveying error. The surveying error impacts the existing structure. The garage went where it was not supposed to go. Commissioner Sylvester stated that the proposed addition over the garage would not impose on anyone. It would not create any difficulties anywhere. It does add value. Commissioner Riedel stated something being a good idea should not be the basis for a variance. There was no specific reason why this variance should be allowed. For a variance there has to be a clear practical difficulty. In this case the approval of the variance would be for doing something extra. Chair Maddy stated approving the variance could create a slippery slope. Commissioner Sylvester stated if the home met the 35 foot setback she assumes there would be no issue. She then stated that because a mistake was made in 1977 she asked if that would justify the need for the variance. Commissioner Riedel explained his interpretation of nonconformity. What is there is allowed to stay. But it should not be allowed to increase. Commissioner Sylvester noted the footprint would not change. Commissioner Riedel stated he could say the nonconformity would not be increased for the setback only metric. But if there is a precedent that adding living space increases the nonconformity, which he thought would be a reasonable interpretation, then that precedent counts. That means that some residents were denied their request presumably along that line. The precedent where property owners had to comply with the setback requirement which ultimately resulted in a less aesthetic look was compelling to him. Commissioner Davis asked if the City denied those property owners or did the property owners make those choices. She stated she has served on the Planning Commission for the last eight years and during that time allowances were made for building situations where, for example, the surveys had been wrong or where the setback was calculated from the face of the curb and not the right-of-way (ROW). Chair Maddy stated there had been a situation where the encroachment was increased because it had been measured from the center of the street. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Maddy noted the fact that the applicants need that additional space cannot be factored into the recommendation. The approval of the variance is all about practical difficulties. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the consideration of this request for a variance is very subjective. Commissioner Davis states she thought the neighborhood the property is located in is a very unique situation. She noted she drives by the applicants’ property when she drives home from work. She stated she thought that what is being proposed would be a wonderful improvement. Commissioner Riedel expressed concern that if Council approves this variance it would ultimately change the definition of nonconforming. Commissioner Sylvester asked if that is true. Riedel stated it is not fair to cherry pick cases. He then stated there needs to be something specific in this case beyond the fact that the original garage ended up encroaching into the setback to justify building the second story over the garage. He does not see that. Sylvester stated it would not create any difficulties and it would add value to the neighborhood and to the home. Riedel stated that argument could be made for every nonconforming property. Sylvester stated not necessarily. Director Darling stated each variance case should be considered on its own merits and without comparing variances across the board. The circumstances for properties are always different. There are never two that are identical and being identical is what would be needed in order to claim precedent. Commissioner Riedel stated he agreed with that from a legal sense. Riedel then stated the Commission and the Council should not make subjective decisions; subjectivity should be very limited. Commissioner Riedel stated if the Commission recommends approval of this request he suggested that the Commission recommend an amendment to the Zoning Code basically saying that if the footprint of a structure stays the same then the amount of nonconformity would not be increased. Chair Maddy and Commissioner Sylvester disagreed. Chair Maddy stated the reason that a variance is being requested in this case is because it is a unique situation. That variance request gives the City a chance to determine what, if any, negative impact there would be, for example, on other homes or on the neighborhood and to consider approval of the request accordingly. Commissioner Sylvester reiterated she does not think there is an issue with what has been proposed. Davis moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval the setback variance for Jessica and Channing Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, to accommodate their proposed remodeling which includes a second story over the garage. Motion passed 3/1 with Riedel dissenting. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 P.M. Director Darling noted that all four of tonight’s applications will be considered by Council on November 27, 2017. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Sylvester stated her term on the Planning Commission is for one year. She was appointed to fill the remainder of Councilmember Johnson’s term after he was elected to serve on the City Council. She wondered when her term is up [it is up February 28, 2018]. She wants to serve out her term but she will not reapply because of obligations to her son. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 10 of 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s October 23, 2017, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). In response to a comment from Commissioner Sylvester, Council Liaison Johnson reported on Council’s action regarding the Starbucks proposal during its September 25 meeting. Director Darling elaborated on Johnson’s report. There was ensuing discussion about that application. • Update on Projects Approved Director Darling noted she had nothing to add to Council Liaison Johnson’s report. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated there are no development applications slated for the December 5, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. She noted she was hesitant to cancel that meeting. She stated she may try to draft another Code amendment for discussion during that meeting. Darling noted that the first Tuesday in January 2018 falls on January 2 the day after the January 1 holiday. She recommended the meeting be held on January 16 noting it is after the Martin Luther King weekend. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 7, 2017, at 9:16 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder